If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

All US citizens 18 and older should be able to vote with out any restrictions what so ever. As for Felons, once they have served their time all of their constitutional rights should be fully restored.

I don't understand the concern about everyone being able to vote. Most people don't.

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia...Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

"Perhaps what he had in mind was what Prof. Alexander Frazer Tytler has written, that a democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse out of the public treasury. From that moment on the majority, he said, always vote for the candidate promising the most benefits from the treasury with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a dictatorship. Unfortunately, we can't argue with the professor because when he wrote that we were still colonials of Great Britain and he was explaining what had destroyed the Athenian Republic more than 2000 years before." -- Ronald Reagan

Well, here we are. The Democrats are dead set against cutting one red cent from their pet entitlement programs because those are the bribes with which they pay off the people on them to vote for Democrat candidates, even in the face of an exponentially growing debt. This can only end in one of two ways, dictatorship as Reagan mentioned, or gutting entitlements. The only way to gut entitlements is to get people to stop voting for politicians who promise to continue growing the entitlements. The only way to do that is to disenfranchise those living on the public dole.

And I don't care if you think the money you get out of Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid is just your own money that you paid in. That's wrong. They are Ponzi/Madeoff Schemes. They rob the future to pay the present.

And I really don't like the idea of making the paying of personal income taxes a condition of the franchise. It complicates the move from an income tax to no income tax at all and a fair tax/national sales tax. And, if someone is retired and living on their own savings, they're not paying income taxes anymore, but they're not on the public dole, and THAT is the deciding criteria, as far as I'm concerned for keeping people from voting themselves more of the government's largesse.

"Perhaps what he had in mind was what Prof. Alexander Frazer Tytler has written, that a democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse out of the public treasury. From that moment on the majority, he said, always vote for the candidate promising the most benefits from the treasury with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a dictatorship. Unfortunately, we can't argue with the professor because when he wrote that we were still colonials of Great Britain and he was explaining what had destroyed the Athenian Republic more than 2000 years before." -- Ronald Reagan

Well, here we are. The Democrats are dead set against cutting one red cent from their pet entitlement programs because those are the bribes with which they pay off the people on them to vote for Democrat candidates, even in the face of an exponentially growing debt. This can only end in one of two ways, dictatorship as Reagan mentioned, or gutting entitlements. The only way to gut entitlements is to get people to stop voting for politicians who promise to continue growing the entitlements. The only way to do that is to disenfranchise those living on the public dole.

And I don't care if you think the money you get out of Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid is just your own money that you paid in. That's wrong. They are Ponzi/Madeoff Schemes. They rob the future to pay the present.

And I really don't like the idea of making the paying of personal income taxes a condition of the franchise. It complicates the move from an income tax to no income tax at all and a fair tax/national sales tax. And, if someone is retired and living on their own savings, they're not paying income taxes anymore, but they're not on the public dole, and THAT is the deciding criteria, as far as I'm concerned for keeping people from voting themselves more of the government's largesse.

I agree on you position of the Dems keeping entitlements to garner votes. Same reason I don't want convicted felons to vote. They're sure not voting republican.

I'm pretty much retired at 50 years old and living on investments. And I pay an enormous amount of income tax on the profits from those investments. I'm also paying property tax at New York State's criminal level... $12,000 per year on a primary residence. Nearly $10,000 on a rental property. I also paid 30 years into social security and I want my money when I reach retirement age. One must also remember that social security and state unemployment benefits are subject to federal tax. So these people are still paying some tax.

When we consider stripping the rights of people because they don't pay enough tax we should think about the types of taxes we all pay. That's the real bunko scheme:

So you're okay with people avoiding funding Medicare, etc ("get paid under the table"), but not with people actually receiving those benefits that were funded?

Are you on drugs?

Yes and no, respectively.
My concern is not with allowing those who pay into the system to control the distribution of wealth within the system. My concern is with not allowing those who remove wealth from the system to control the distribution of wealth within the system. Historicly, people paying into the public coffers have not been a problem, with respect to political corruption. People taking out of the public coffers are.

How about this as a compromise... working only at the federal level, if the amount of direct monetary benefits you receive from the federal government is no more than 10% of the sum of all of the taxes you pay to the federal government, THEN you get to vote in federal elections. You get a benefit of $100 from the government, you can still vote so long as you paid at least $1000 to the government in the same period. Get $100.01 in benefits while paying $1000, no vote. Get $100 in benefits while paying $999.99, no vote. Etc.

And any benefit that is truly in a lock box, you can only get out what you put in, would be exempted, but right now, that would not include Social Security.

So if im not a homeowner I shouldn't be able to vote on a issue that affects home owners even if Im closing on a home next week or next yr/ what if im a felon thats a homeowner what can I vote on? If Im on assistance but get off 90 days after the election I cant vote even though everything affects me anyway? I question why you dont want people to vote do you think everyone that doesint fit your criteria really affect voting that much ? I beg to differ and say for the most part they dont excersise their voting rights anyway and if they did most of them are under educated and easy to sway and the others probably see things your way anyhow to conclude the problems are the politicians whos vote that really count going to the highest bidder

Anyway, I would be remiss if I didn't explain why I feel how I feel about my position. In my opinion, to tell one group that they can't vote while others can sends the message that the nonvoting group is not as important and their issues don't matter. EVERYONE, rich or poor, felon or nonfelon, on public assistance or not, is affected by the decisions elected officials make and therefore, EVERYONE should have the opportunity to decide who makes those decisions that affecct them.

Pinnacle: If you close the deal, to the point where you can't back out of it, on or before the day of the election, then you would be able to vote on any property tax referenda in the system I described.

Tatted: True, but there's also the issue of sustainability. Manifestly, allowing politicians to pander to the lowest common denominator of government entitlements is responsible for them growing to the point that they are about to eat the entire federal budget alive. This is an untennable situation. It's going to end one of two ways. One) the system stops promissing what it can't deliver and people accept that. Two) Zimbabwe, 1999.

Pinnacle: If you close the deal, to the point where you can't back out of it, on or before the day of the election, then you would be able to vote on any property tax referenda in the system I described.

Tatted: True, but there's also the issue of sustainability. Manifestly, allowing politicians to pander to the lowest common denominator of government entitlements is responsible for them growing to the point that they are about to eat the entire federal budget alive. This is an untennable situation. It's going to end one of two ways. One) the system stops promissing what it can't deliver and people accept that. Two) Zimbabwe, 1999.

They are politicians, so no matter what, pandering is what they've always have and always will do. Who are we to decide who they should or should not be pandering to? (Provided that they don't take bribes or kickbacks or otherwise do anything criminal of course)

Cathy, if you realize that renters pay property taxes, how can you promote a law that does not let them vote on the taxes? They do have a stake in it. And what about renters who have kids in the local schools? No voting for them on the property taxes that affect their kids education because they don't own their home? Am I accurately stating your position?
I was always going to choose the lifestyle of owning rather than renting because that is the lifestyle I want and made many years ago. And I don't like the idea of not being able to vote on the issues that would affect me in the future because I did not own a home in the present.